"A New York Treasure" --Village Voice

Hoop Dreams

Will the Heat finish off the Celtics tonight? I’d like to see it but I think the Celtics will win.

Can the Thunder beat the Grizzles tonight in Oklahoma City to go up, 3-2. Sure, they can, but I’m picking the Grizzles. Hope I’m wrong but I’ll believe the Grizzles (and Celtics) are done when I see it.

[Picture by Patrick Joust]

Categories:  1: Featured  Basketball  Bronx Banter  Games We Play

Share: Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email %PRINT_TEXT


1 bp1   ~  May 11, 2011 1:42 pm

I know I should care, but I just don't. I've tried. I tune into a couple of the games and find myself bored and distracted after a couple minutes. I was kinda hoping the NBA would invent a way for both the Heat and the Celtics to lose - mutually assured destruction or something like that - but no. One of them has to win - and I can't really conjure up much emotion either way.

As much as I hated - LOATHED - the Celtics teams of the 80's - I have none of that investment in today's NBA. I want to see high energy well played team basketball - and that seems to be sorely lacking. Much of today's game boils down to "get the ball to so-and-so and get out of his way". That makes for some fun highlights on Sportscenter, but it makes the games kinda boring to watch.

Probably shoulda held this post back, but it's been on my mind lately. I used to really enjoy NBA games - even regular season games. Now a mid-week regular season game is about as interesting as watching Mike Mussina do a crossword puzzle. One guy has the ball and the rest just stand around and watch. I see more of that during the playoffs these past few years than I remember.

I need to find a team to root for. Any suggestions? I need some help here.

2 ms october   ~  May 11, 2011 1:43 pm

these have been compelling playoffs for the most part.

i think the heat send the celtics fishing tonight.

i would like to see the grizzlies win but i think the okc crowd and all the minutes z-bo and marc gasol played will be too much for them.

3 ms october   ~  May 11, 2011 1:45 pm

[1] it's true that isolations have become an offense.

i'd actually suggest the grizzlies as a team to watch and root for.
they are young, talented, and move the ball very well, as well as play with a lot of energy.

4 Alex Belth   ~  May 11, 2011 1:49 pm

1) I don't completely agree. I think there is some very well played hoops these days and the energy level and pace is really exciting. Think it's certainly a better brand of basketball than we saw in the mid-late 90s.

5 ms october   ~  May 11, 2011 1:52 pm

[4] yeah to me league is in a much better place basketball wise than it has been for quite some time. most of the 2000s featured some bad, uninspiring basketball with a few bright spots.
the last few years have really been improving and this regular season was one of the better regular seasons in years.

6 bp1   ~  May 11, 2011 1:57 pm

[4] Maybe. Like I said, I've lost interest. Some of that is on me, no doubt. I'll take Ms October's suggestion and check out the Grizzlies.

7 Jon DeRosa   ~  May 11, 2011 1:57 pm

[1] Go with the Mavs. Kidd is the point guard and gets the ball around. Sure Dirk is the first and second option, but not in a pound-the-air-out-of-the-ball kind of way like in Miami. Grizz are good too, but they're messier than the Mavs.

I hear it all the time from huge sports fans - they can't stand the NBA. Even huge hoops fans, who love NCAA, a lot of them hate the NBA. I've heard some form of the complaint ever since the Pistons dethroned the Lakers/Celtics. What's turning everybody off?

8 RIYank   ~  May 11, 2011 2:03 pm

[1][7] Kidd is great, but I say back the Bulls. Derek Rose is the future of the NBA.

9 ms october   ~  May 11, 2011 2:08 pm

[8] i think d rose is an immense talent and is amazing to watch, but the bulls ain't exactly playing team ball.
i suggested the grizzlies because they do play a team style ball and are high energy - the two main criteria for bp1, plus they are young so they are a team to grow with.
the mavs are obviously much older.
and any team that can get z-bo to actually pass the ball has to be credited with playing team style ball!!

10 Dimelo   ~  May 11, 2011 2:10 pm

Definitely agree with [4] & [5]. The NBA is a way better now than I remember in the 90s.

11 Alex Belth   ~  May 11, 2011 3:09 pm

Love Derek Rose, really enjoy the Mavs. I admire the Grizzles but I prefer the Thunder.

12 Sliced Bread   ~  May 11, 2011 4:22 pm

[7] I think for the casual-to-hostily indifferent NBA observer the perception is that it's no longer a team game, or that it's become the least teamy of the team sports, a league almost solely obsessed with a few offensive superstars while defense, passing, and bench players have become distant afterthoughts.
And while all of this is true, active NBA fans can argue that at none of it is true.
The game has changed. To me the most apparent difference is that centers no longer dominate, and it's become much more of an outside game, which you could argue is more exciting. And as Ms October points out, there are definitely still teams playing team ball.
I no longer have much, if any rooting interest in NBA basketball. I don't follow it enough to care about any of the superstars, but I watch it occasionally, and don't change the channel if it's being discussed on the radio. But I'm much more interested in college ball these days.

13 Alex Belth   ~  May 11, 2011 4:32 pm

Yeah, all the seven footers are jump shooters with ball handling skills like Dirk and Durant. But teams play great D and pass a lot. Plus, the NBA has been isolation happy offensively for years not just recently.

14 Chyll Will   ~  May 11, 2011 4:56 pm

[13] What is this 'D' that you speak of and how come I've not seen any of it around here?

15 Sliced Bread   ~  May 11, 2011 5:10 pm

[14] yeah pretty much the only 'D' you'll find at MaDison Square GarDen is in the signage, or when the Big East tournament rolls thru.

feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email
"This ain't football. We do this every day."
--Earl Weaver